Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion

Dan Oglesby
2006-07-31T17:48:52Z

On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 19:32 +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-07-31 18:44:33 +0200, Rudy Zijlstra <rudy@edsons.demon.nl> wrote:
> > On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2006-07-31 17:59:58 +0200, Adrian Ulrich
> > > <reiser4@blinkenlights.ch> wrote:
> > > > A colleague of mine happened to create a ~300gb filesystem and started
> > > > to migrate Mailboxes (Maildir-style format = many small files (1-3kb))
> > > > to the new LUN. At about 70% the filesystem ran out of inodes; Not a
> > >
> > > So preparation work wasn't done.
> >
> > Of course you are right. Preparation work was not fully done. And using
> > ext1 would also have been possible. I suspect you are still using ext1,
> > cause with proper preparation it is perfectly usable.
>
> Oh, and before people start laughing at me, here are some personal or
> friend's experiences with different filesystems:
>
> * reiser3: A HDD containing a reiser3 filesystem was tried to be
> booted on a machine that fucked up DMA writes. Fortunately, it
> crashed really soon (right after going for read-write.) After
> rebooting the HDD on a sane PeeCee, it refused to boot. Starting
> off some rescue system showed an _empty_ root filesystem.
>
> * A friend's XFS data partition (portable USB/FireWire HDD) once
> crashed due to being hot-unplugged off the USB. The in-kernel XFS
> driver refused to mount that thing again, and the tools also
> refused to fix any errors. (Don't ask, no details at my hands...)
>
> * JFS just always worked for me. Though I've never ever had a broken
> HDD where it (or it's tools) could have shown how well-done they
> were, so from a crash-recovery point of view, it's untested.
>
> * Being a regular ext3 user, I had lots of broken HDDs containing
> ext3 filesystems. For every single case, it has been easy fixing
> the filesystem after cloning. Just _once_, fsck wasn't able to fix
> something, so I did it manually with some disk editor. This worked
> well because the on-disk data structures are actually as simple as
> they are.
>
> ext3 always worked well for me, so why should I abandon it?
>
> MfG, JBG

I've lost EXT2 and EXT3 filesystems from machines with no bad hardware
(power loss during writes).

I've recovered all but a handful of files from a RAID-5 array running
ReiserFS v3 that had two drives fail in rapid succession with bad
sectors.

Sometimes you're lucky, sometimes you're not.

--Dan